IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 15m DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LNARAYANA A'
M.F.A.N0.11769 OF 2007
M.F.A.N0.14360 OF 2001 *
M.F.A.NO.11769/2007
BETWEEN:
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE L
INSURANCE CO. LTD., ~
No.46, WHITE ROAD.
OHENNAM-300 014 ' V ,
BY I'i{"'S MANAGER;
""" :AFFELLANT
(BY SR1.O.N;iAHESH;FAVDV;)D '
AND:
1. RAMAI'§N'A_@
,...'vv.AGED':2=7yEARS, .....
SON OF L:A}FE'MUN1KAVERAPRA,
'R/A IV'O.384'. C<.OTT1GERE VILLAGE,
GOTHGERE .VPOST;' BANNERGATTA ROAD.
EAN.OALORE--LEj56'E 083.
2. 'Y.KR1SH.NAPPA, MAJOR,
" ~ --« ' ~ . SON OF YELLAFFA,
' M/X'1'I}'\_NAfmLLE {V},
OSARJAPURA POST <31 HOBLI.
TALUK.
' {Bx} SR1.N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1)
: RESPONDENTS
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAENST THE JUDGMENT
E AND AWARD DATEDZ07.05.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.6164/2005
{U
ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL JUDGE 8: MEMBER, MACT.
BANGALORE,, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 88.000/~
WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% RA. FROM THE___ DATE
OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. 'I
M.F.A.NO. 14360/2007
BETWEEN:
SRLRAMANNA @ K.RA1\/IAIAH,
SON OF LATE MUNIKAVERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, V
RESIDING AT # 384,
GOTTIGERE VILLAGE AND POST, '
BANNERGATTA ROAD.
BANGALORE--56O O83.
[BY SRI.N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,'ADvf}-.. .3
AND:
1. Y.KRiSHNAPPA§"jMAJ*{)R.
SON
MATTANAHALLI{Vj,.,"-, _
SARJAPURA POSTv&IIOELI_,
ANEKAL TALUII. . ' " V.
, ROYAIL§,,.SUNDARA1x--I ALLIANCE
(ET SRI.O.MAIIESH, ADV. FOR R2)
. II~ISU'RANr.:E CO. LTD,
":_#»16,' WHITE; ROAD.
CHENNé'II§<3QG 0,I_4j,,.
EY~.IT*S,MANAGER.
' "-~ ' :RESPONDENTS
_ = EEILED U /S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AN'D_A._ ARD DATED: 07.05.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.6164/2005
O_N_.'I"HE' FILE OF 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, SCCH--10, PARTLY
AI.,IJO'WING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
ASEEKING ENCHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeals filed both by the Claimant as
insurance company. The M A C T, Bangalo1*f.e:”
No.6164/2005 by the judgment and-‘award ~ldat_led’lv”l_7l6;.iAOC}«6 O
has awarded a compensation of
interest.
2. The ground taken. by thye—-irisura,nce is that
the Vehicle which was ;3:pp.ellant has been
falsely impliclatedijiforlthe jfllrposelvoflclairning compensation.
By referrin§–.Ex..P1,– made by one Sri Lingaraj,
learned counsel’ ‘submitted that though tractor–dowser dashed
..whelellVérf’the number of the said Vehicle has
the complaint. As per Ex.Pl3, case
x”l’sheet, MLC was that road traffic accident was caused
he going in a two wheeler due to skid and fall
dowr-.I_.T-The same is also referred in the case summary and
O discharge card. The Claimant who has been examined as PW-
nl’ ‘stated that he made a complaint as per EXP}. However the
<
K.
injured did not refer the involvement of the tractor and nature
of the accident. In View of the above inconsistency, since the
accident is in View of his own negligence due to
two wheeler. only to claim compensation, this
was brought in.
3. The learned counsel for’ the L’
accident has occurred on and on’–the_same day
Without loss of tirne, he A.i:n’v_olVement of the
tractor KA 05 MB anddriV.erV_y\fas,charge sheeted for
offence under Section l34~A 8: B of
the M V * Exilli’fdoesvlplvspeciiically refer about the tractor
and therefore llthere in the case. Ex.l3’5 IMV report
:b’C-?11_’S registrationnurnbers of all the three vehicles. The
tractorTcau’sedlacciclent against a two wheeler, it fell on the
‘”r..,,..,anotherl’tyvo_lwlice;ler as a result the injured suffered injury
damage’:. caused to the vehicle may not be a visible
‘Which is also possible in case of light touch. Hence it
H isflsu’o5rnitted that what has been done by the Tribunal is just
proper calling for no interference.
,5
4. The complaint as per Ex.Pl is immediately after the
accident and based on the same Crime No.356/2005 is
registered by Attibele Police for the offences refer1’ed’-lfijilrthe
charge sheet against the driver of the tractor.
cannot be said that the tractor was “not the
accident. The IMV report though not,.”_say
accident has not been occurred, reveals the “damage caused
to the two Wheeler. It damage
could be seen when the In the
circumstances. the ‘contentions’of4’thle’f1ea.rr1ed counsel for the
insurance :,company accepted. The appeal filed by
the insurance compagnylfis dismissed.
5. l§Eow_ it has’ robe seen whether the claimant is entitled
of compensation. EXP2 is the wound
cert’ifi_ca_tel. is shown to have suffered the
following in3′._t1rie’s:
n{i.}__’ Scalp avulsion of right half including joint of niber
ear.
it “”l(ii} Abrasion over right shoulder. tenderness and pain
over scapular region.
‘5
(3
Xmray shows comminuted fracture of scapular
neck fracture of right acrimony.
6. The Tribunal has awarded compensation:
pain and agony Rs.30,000/–. Considering the
injuries suffered and fracture, compensation’-,under «trl1is”‘heat:1
needs enhancement, which is_ enhvalnced
Though the claimant has produced for
Rs.38,000/–, the clain1’ls~.y_ awarded only
Rs.25,000/-. There is now tribunal to
disallow balance of e§§perises-«Therefore, balance
Of RS.13,(l0.0/9 this head. Towards
conveyance and nourishment, the tribunal has awarded
which lis”en.h.anced by another sum of Rs.él,000/~.
_ ‘o.f”ia5ln:enities, the tribunal has awarded only
is on the lower side and the same is
.ll_lf.enl:anced ” another sum of Rs.10,000/–. Hence the
entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.42,000/-
shall carry interest at 6% per annum. The appeal filed
“bylthe Claimant is partially allowed accordingly.
ll
‘2
The amount in deposit is directed to be transmittedto
the claims tribunai.
F A &
a}<;d*